82 FR 41386 - Approval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Washoe Oxygenated Fuels Program
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 168 (August 31, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 168 (August 31, 2017)
| Page Range | 41386-41388 | |
| FR Document | 2017-18499 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 41386-41388] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-18499] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0154; FRL-9967-20-Region 9] Approval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Washoe Oxygenated Fuels Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) from passenger vehicles. We are proposing to approve the suspension of a local rule that regulated these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 2, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2017-0154 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be [[Page 41387]] Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4152, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule suspension? B. Does the rule suspension meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? On March 28, 2014, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted Washoe County District Board of Health (WCDBOH) Regulations Governing Air Quality Management Section 040.095, ``Oxygen Content of Motor Vehicle Fuel,'' as amended by the WCDBOH on December 24, 2013. On September 28, 2014, the submittal for Section 040.095 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of this rule? The WCDBOH has adopted other versions of Section 040.095, most recently the version adopted September 22, 2005 and submitted to the EPA on November 4, 2005. We approved this version of the rule into the SIP on July 3, 2008 (73 FR 38124). While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? The submitted revision to Section 040.095 suspends all requirements of the SIP-approved rule, which implements Washoe County's oxygenated fuel program. This program requires gasoline sold in Washoe County to contain 2.7 percent oxygenate by weight between October 1 and January 31 as a means of reducing CO emissions. The Truckee Meadows area of Washoe County has historically been designated nonattainment for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or ``Standard''),\1\ and the WCDBOH adopted Section 040.095 to comply with the requirements of CAA section 211(m), which requires states to adopt an oxygenated gasoline program for any area out of attainment for the CO NAAQS. The EPA redesignated Truckee Meadows as attainment for the CO NAAQS in 2008, and the area's CO levels are now substantially below the Standard. 73 FR 38124 (July 3, 2008). The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Truckee Meadows was first designated nonattainment in 1978. See 43 FR 8962, 9013 (March 3, 1978). Truckee Meadows was classified as moderate nonattainment under the 1990 CAA amendments. See 56 FR 56694, 56798 (November 6, 1991). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule suspension? As a general matter, under CAA section 110(l), the EPA may approve relaxations or suspensions of control measures so long as doing so would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or otherwise conflict with applicable CAA requirements. The EPA has evaluated the revision to Section 040.095 to determine whether suspension of the Washoe County's oxygenated fuel program would interfere with NAAQS attainment or maintenance or conflict with other CAA requirements. B. Does the rule suspension meet the evaluation criteria? We believe this SIP submittal is consistent with CAA 110(l) requirements regarding restrictions on relaxation of SIP measures. The WCDBOH's analysis of future CO emissions in Washoe County demonstrates continued compliance with the CO NAAQS as a result of other state measures, such as the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, and federal measures such as the Renewable Fuels Standard. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. Public Comment and Proposed Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule suspension because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 2, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule suspension, our final action will incorporate this revision into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the WCDBOH rule described in this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this material available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (Air-4), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105-3901. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely [[Page 41388]] affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: August 14, 2017. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2017-18499 Filed 8-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![41386 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 168 / Thursday, August 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ In the above table, the key is as In addition, the SIP is not approved
Participation by Affected Local Entities follows: to apply on any Indian reservation land
States must consult with and allow or in any other area where EPA or an
participation from local political A .............. Approve. Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
NA ........... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
* .............. Not germane to infrastructure Indian country, the rule does not have
Any IDEM rulemaking procedure SIPs.
contained in IC 13–14–9 requires public tribal implications and will not impose
participation in the SIP development substantial direct costs on tribal
V. Statutory and Executive Order governments or preempt tribal law as
process. In addition, IDEM ensures that
Reviews specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
the public hearing requirements of 40
CFR 51.102 are satisfied during the SIP Under the CAA, the Administrator is FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
development process. EPA proposes required to approve a SIP submission List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
that Indiana has met the infrastructure that complies with the provisions of the
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) CAA and applicable Federal regulations. Environmental protection, Air
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). pollution control, Incorporation by
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, reference, Intergovernmental relations,
IV. What action is EPA taking? EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Particulate matter, Reporting and
EPA is proposing to approve most provided that they meet the criteria of recordkeeping requirements.
elements of a submission from Indiana the CAA. Accordingly, this action Dated: August 21, 2017.
certifying that its current SIP is merely approves state law as meeting Robert A. Kaplan,
sufficient to meet the required Federal requirements and does not Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
infrastructure elements under sections impose additional requirements beyond [FR Doc. 2017–18503 Filed 8–30–17; 8:45 am]
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM2.5 those imposed by state law. For that BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
NAAQS. EPA’s proposed actions for the reason, this action:
state’s satisfaction of infrastructure SIP • Is not a significant regulatory action
requirements, by element of section subject to review by the Office of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
110(a)(2) are contained in the table Management and Budget under AGENCY
below. Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 40 CFR Part 52
Element 2012 PM2.5 January 21, 2011);
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0154; FRL–9967–20–
• Does not impose an information Region 9]
(A)—Emission limits and
other control measures ..... A collection burden under the provisions
(B)—Ambient air quality of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Approval of Nevada Air Plan
monitoring/data system ..... A U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Revisions, Washoe Oxygenated Fuels
(C)1—Program for enforce- • Is certified as not having a Program
ment of control measures A significant economic impact on a
(C)2—PSD ............................ A substantial number of small entities AGENCY: Environmental Protection
(D)1—I Prong 1: Interstate under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Agency (EPA).
transport—significant con- U.S.C. 601 et seq.); ACTION: Proposed rule.
tribution ............................. NA
(D)2—I Prong 2: Interstate
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
transport—interfere with Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
maintenance ...................... NA affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act revision to the Nevada State
(D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate
transport—prevention of of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Implementation Plan (SIP). This
significant deterioration ..... A • Does not have Federalism revision concerns emissions of carbon
(D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate implications as specified in Executive monoxide (CO) from passenger vehicles.
transport—protect visibility NA Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, We are proposing to approve the
(D)5—Interstate and inter- 1999); suspension of a local rule that regulated
national pollution abate- these emission sources under the Clean
ment .................................. A
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking
(E)1—Adequate resources ... A comments on this proposal and plan to
(E)2—State board require- safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); follow with a final action.
ments ................................ A
(F)—Stationary source moni- • Is not a significant regulatory action DATES: Any comments must arrive by
toring system ..................... A subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR October 2, 2017.
(G)—Emergency power ........ A 28355, May 22, 2001); ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
(H)—Future SIP revisions .... A • Is not subject to requirements of identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
(I)—Nonattainment planning section 12(d) of the National OAR–2017–0154 at http://
requirements of part D ...... *
(J)1—Consultation with gov-
Technology Transfer and Advancement www.regulations.gov, or via email to
ernment officials ................ A Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Buss.Jeffrey@epa.gov. For comments
(J)2—Public notification ........ A application of those requirements would submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
nlaroche on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
(J)3—PSD ............................. A be inconsistent with the CAA; and online instructions for submitting
(J)4—Visibility protection ...... * • Does not provide EPA with the comments. Once submitted, comments
(K)—Air quality modeling/ discretionary authority to address, as cannot be edited or removed from
data ................................... A appropriate, disproportionate human Regulations.gov. For either manner of
(L)—Permitting fees .............. A health or environmental effects, using submission, the EPA may publish any
(M)—Consultation and par- practicable and legally permissible comment received to its public docket.
ticipation by affected local
entities ............................... A
methods, under Executive Order 12898 Do not submit electronically any
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). information you consider to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_41554/page/1.svg)
![41388 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 168 / Thursday, August 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
affect small governments, as described DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE confidential business information, or
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act otherwise sensitive information
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); National Oceanic and Atmospheric submitted voluntarily by the sender will
Administration be publicly accessible. NMFS will
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
50 CFR Part 665 A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
[Docket No. 170109046–7749–01] remain anonymous).
1999);
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• Is not an economically significant RIN 0648–XF156 Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable
regulatory action based on health or Fisheries, 808–725–5176.
safety risks subject to Executive Order Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2017
U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); proposes to specify a 2017 catch limit of
Catch Limits
• Is not a significant regulatory action 2,000 mt of longline-caught bigeye tuna
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries for each U.S. Pacific territory. NMFS
28355, May 22, 2001); Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and would also authorize each U.S. Pacific
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its
• Is not subject to requirements of Commerce.
section 12(d) of the National 2,000-mt bigeye tuna limit to U.S.
ACTION: Proposed specifications; request longline fishing vessels that are
Technology Transfer and Advancement
for comments. permitted to fish under the Fishery
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of
application of those requirements would SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a 2017 limit the Western Pacific (FEP). Those vessels
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longline- must be identified in a specified fishing
and caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific agreement with the applicable territory.
• Does not provide the EPA with the territory (American Samoa, Guam, and The Western Pacific Fishery
discretionary authority to address the Northern Mariana Islands). NMFS Management Council recommended
disproportionate human health or would allow each territory to allocate these specifications. The proposed catch
up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. and allocation limits and accountability
environmental effects with practical,
longline fishing vessels in a specified measures are identical to those that
appropriate, and legally permissible
fishing agreement that meets established NMFS specified for each U.S. territory
methods under Executive Order 12898
criteria. As an accountability measure, in 2016 (81 FR 63145, September 14,
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). NMFS would monitor, attribute, and 2016).
In addition, the SIP is not approved restrict (if necessary) catches of NMFS will monitor catches of
to apply on any Indian reservation land longline-caught bigeye tuna, including longline-caught bigeye tuna by the
or in any other area where the EPA or catches made under a specified fishing longline fisheries of each U.S Pacific
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a agreement. The proposed catch limits territory, including catches made by
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of and accountability measures would U.S. longline vessels operating under
Indian country, the rule does not have support the long-term sustainability of specified fishing agreements. The
tribal implications and will not impose fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific criteria that a specified fishing
substantial direct costs on tribal Islands. agreement must meet, and the process
governments or preempt tribal law as DATES: NMFS must receive comments for attributing longline-caught bigeye
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 by September 15, 2017. tuna, will follow the procedures in 50
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). ADDRESSES: You may submit comments CFR 665.819 (Territorial catch and
on this document, identified by NOAA– fishing effort limits). When NMFS
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
NMFS–2017–0004, by either of the projects that a territorial catch or
Environmental protection, Air following methods: allocation limit will be reached, NMFS
pollution control, Carbon monoxide, • Electronic Submission: Submit all would, as an accountability measure,
Incorporation by reference, electronic public comments via the prohibit the catch and retention of
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels
and recordkeeping requirements. http://www.regulations.gov/ in the applicable territory (if the
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- territorial catch limit is projected to be
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 0004, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, reached), and/or vessels in a specified
Dated: August 14, 2017. complete the required fields, and enter fishing agreement (if the allocation limit
Deborah Jordan, or attach your comments. is projected to be reached).
• Mail: Send written comments to On March 20, 2017, in Territory of
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Michael D. Tosatto, Regional American Samoa v. NMFS, et al. (16–
[FR Doc. 2017–18499 Filed 8–30–17; 8:45 am] cv–95, D. Haw), a Federal judge vacated
Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. and set aside a NMFS rule that amended
176, Honolulu, HI 96818. the American Samoa Large Vessel
Instructions: Comments sent by any Prohibited Area (LVPA) for eligible
other method, to any other address or longliners. The Court held that the
nlaroche on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
individual, or received after the end of action was inconsistent with the ‘‘other
the comment period, may not be applicable law’’ provision of the
considered by NMFS. All comments Magnuson-Stevens Act by not
received are a part of the public record considering the protection and
and will generally be posted for public preservation of cultural fishing rights in
viewing on www.regulations.gov American Samoa under the Instruments
without change. All personal identifying of Cession. The Instruments of Cession
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), do not specifically mention cultural
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Aug 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_41554/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-09-23 10:08:18
Document Modified: 2017-09-23 10:08:18
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by October 2, 2017. | |
| Contact | Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4152, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 41386 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR